Because I don't believe most of the wealthy are freeloaders any more than I believe most of the poor are freeloaders. Most of the wealthy are, IMO, wealthy because they have helped create a great deal of wealth.
Paris HIltons, rich wall street lawyers, millionaire congress critters -- these are the exception, not the rule.
And the impoverished don't need tax revenues to build themselves up. They need opportunities to show the world what they can do. And who have those opportunities typically come from? People who are wealthier than they are who are willing to trade part of the wealth for the services of those who are less wealthy.
I'd have no problem with taxing Paris and the lawyers and the congresspeople at 80 percent ... if someone could show me how to distinguish the useless rich in a reasoned/systematic way from the wealthy who work hard and provide productive value. I dare you, or anyone, to put 100 random American multi-millionaires in a room, all of them strangers to you and to the national media, and pick the 5 or 10 who are useless appendages on society.
IMO it can't be done.
And that means every time we try to punish those useless appendages by progressive taxes or whatever, we're going to take away another chunk of the incentives the non-useless rich have to stay in this country and use their above average skills of creating wealth for us to share.
*THAT* is why I think progressive taxation is about as dumb, and as hubristically ignorant, an idea as man has come up with.
It is less effective than your guillotine would be, less honest, and easier for those useless rich to avoid.
Originally Posted by: Wade